Subhas Chandra Sen, J. - (1.) A large number of writ petitions have been moved by exhibitors of films through Video Cassette Recorders (hereinafter described as the Video) and Television sets in which a number of legal points have been raised. All those cases, about 16 in number, were heard together and are disposed of by this judgment. Mr. Dipankar Gupta was appointed Amicus Curiae and has very ably assisted the Court in resolving the disputes that have been raised.
(2.) There are two groups of petitioners in the cases that were heard. One group runs what is known as Video parlour or Video Shows simpliciter. In these cases, the exhibitors allow people to watch the shows and an entry fee is charged for this purpose. There are another set of petitioners who do not charge any entry fee but who run tea and coffee shops where the customers can watch video shows free of charge. This is a device to lure customers and to boost sale.
(3.) The arguments that were advanced on behalf of the petitioners were : (a) The petitioners could not be required by the West Bengal Government to obtain a licence for the purpose of exhibiting films by Video Cassette and Television sets ; (b) Assuming that the West Bengal Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1954 applied to a video an exhibitor could not be required to take a licence under the Act because the rules and the terms and conditions of the licences that were laid down in the rules could not be made applicable to the Video Shows ; (c) It was argued that the tax imposed by section 4A of the West Bengal Entertainment-cum-Amusement 'fax Act, 1982 (Act VI of 1982) could not law-fully be levied on a holder of a Video who does not charge any fee for exhibition of films through Video ; (d) Lastly, it was argued that the exhibitors of films through Video have to pay two fold under the Act VI of 1982. He has to pay a tax under Section 4A for the public performance of film He also has to pay another tax as holder of a T.V Set through which the films arc exhibited.;